The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

looksee · 20-03-2010 10:27pm

As a non-Catholic I may not be entitled to an opinion on this thread, but my children are Catholic and I live in a Catholic society so I feel I should be able to comment. Also the CC did not treat me with any respect when I got married. Among other things I was one of those people who signed away my rights to raise my children as other than Catholic.

However, if you cannot remember - personally I mean, not as theory - the attitudes and atmosphere of the 70s in Ireland, then you will find it very difficult to appreciate the point that some people are trying to put forward here.

I do not think that Cardinal Brady's situation at the time was at all unusual. It was completely accepted that you followed instructions, especially if you had sworn to follow the rules of an organisation. In reporting to his Bishop he did what was required of him. And sadly it might have been to him a greater moral offence to speak out, it was only his responsibility to inform his superior.
And if he had spoken out it is more than likely that the gardai would have referred the matter back to his Bishop.

It is not so very long ago that police would not interfere in a situation of a wife being beaten by her husband - it was a 'domestic' and no one else's business. Only a very few years ago - 6 or 7 - a woman teacher at a local primary school was totally unfit to teach as she had a temper and no self control. She could be heard shouting from adjacent classrooms. She bullied one generation of children and was still there when their children went to the school. There were complaints, children were removed, some pupils went to the principal to complain and were told not to tell lies. Parents complained to the Department of Education, what did they do? They referred it back to the Nun-Principal and nothing changed.

If anyone is to blame it is the various Popes of the last few decades, they are the only ones who could have removed the secrecy, but this Pope is talking about 'your Church' (in Ireland), distancing himself from the problem, and his letter spends most of its length detailing vigils and observances and masses to put the church back on track. Even now there is on his part no real understanding of the issues.

By today's standards the Cardinal was wrong, probably no one is more aware of that than himself. But what good will it do to sacrifice one person who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Orion · 20-03-2010 10:40pm

Fanny - that's not the point. Jail and settlements are civic & civil issues. The problem with the RCC and this letter from JR is that the church itself does not acknowledge it's own responsibility for covering up years of abuse - and actively participating in moving perpetrators around to find new victims. Brady's excuse "it wasn't my responsibility to report it" is laughable - it reminds me of Irish Rail... "it's not my job sir". And the bishop of Rome has not only refused to demand resignations from various Bishops and Cardinals he has actually refused to accept some from men who wanted to resign in disgrace. As far as I'm concerned that makes him as guilty as if he abused the children himself.

PS - None of this is to be taken as an attack on an ordinary believer. It's not intended that way as I stated in a thread on Feedback.
PPS - yes I purposely do not call JR Benedict or capitalise pope in relation to him. And that is nothing to do with the current scandals - it dates back to the day of the white smoke and it's for many reasons. If you object to me refusing to recognise him please take it to PM or start another thread. But I won't change this.

Stephentlig · 20-03-2010 10:59pm

The Pope’s pastoral letter…some first thoughts
http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/pope%E2%80%99s-pastoral-letter%E2%80%A6some-first-thoughts

Alan Shatter responds to the Pope’s letter
http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/alan-shatter-responds-pope%E2%80%99s-letter

Pax Christi
Stephen<3

dunleakelleher · 20-03-2010 11:14pm

james finn wrote: »

yes its rape but what do we do, talk about it till we die or make the change and move on cos its on tv-radio everyday, you have to get to a point where you say enough is enough move on.

You are right we should not just talk about it till we die or as the pope has done write a strongly worded letter about these hideous crimes. It is on TV-Radio and we should and for the sake of the RCC we have to move on. The change being a full purge in the RCC of those who committed child rape, those who knew about child rape and those who remained silent about child rape for the good of the church. And at that point as you rightly say then and only then we can move on.

philologos · 20-03-2010 11:15pm

Stephentlig wrote: »

Alan Shatter responds to the Pope’s letter
http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/alan-shatter-responds-pope%E2%80%99s-letter

Israel has nowhere near as intimate a relationship as the Vatican has with Ireland. Indeed, the Vatican has a role in Irish affairs from the school system, to the adherence of many people in faith. As such the Papal Nuncio should be a part of any efforts to resolve the pain that has been caused.

Indeed, the Israeli state hasn't been running schools, and other institutions in Ireland. The Vatican has albeit indirectly.

The situation is entirely different, so surely this kind of excuse making isn't warranted?

dunleakelleher · 20-03-2010 11:27pm

Stephentlig wrote: »

The Pope’s pastoral letter…some first thoughts
http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/pope%E2%80%99s-pastoral-letter%E2%80%A6some-first-thoughts

Alan Shatter responds to the Pope’s letter
http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/alan-shatter-responds-pope%E2%80%99s-letter

Pax Christi
Stephen<3

Besides quoting other people and blogs
Whats your point.

santing · 20-03-2010 11:44pm

Having read this letter, I wonder what he is "truly sorry" for. If you study the "we" versus "I" than it becomes apparent that the pope doesn't see himself part of the irish church that was to blame. He is not acknowledging responsibility by his office - but blames the Irish RC.

This is a very crafty written letter ...

BTW (1), Columbanus in this letter - Columbanus is the right person to quote - he was not afraid to write the bishop of Roman Church and point him at his short comings. We need a Columbanus now!

(2) another reference to the history is misleading. Suffering for the RCC in Ireland did not start after the reformation in the 16th century, but after the RC/english invasion in the 12th century. Read the Remonstrance of the Irish Chiefs to Pope John XXII on CELT!

J C · 20-03-2010 11:58pm

dunleakelleher wrote: »

The RCC is made up of the ordinary people of the Church. Only a minute percentage are clergy. So if the majority of the Church are not privy to those changes it really means nothing and nothing will change..
Remember Vatican II was fundamental in giving the Church back to the ordinary people from the hierarchy of the Church.

... some people may have claimed at the time, that Vatican II was about giving the Church back to the ordinary people ... but it obviously never happened!!!!

... nor could it ever be expected to happen in a heirarchical church.

... power is always exercised from the top within heirarchical institutions!!

... and so it continues ... could I remind everyone on this thread that we are discussing a letter from the Pope ... and not 'the ordinary people' (who number about 1 billion persons with every possible view on every possible subject, including the child abuse scandals).

Power heirarchies never dilute their power voluntarily ... so anybody who claims that Vatican II was about anything other than consolidating power is not living in the real world.

strobe · 21-03-2010 12:18am

james finn wrote: »

the 1970s are gone, its 2010 and yes it was bad form but why keep going on about it, whats done is done.

If I was to murder your family and then avoid capture for a few decades would you shrug your shoulders and say "what's done is done" and stop going on about it?

Michael B · 21-03-2010 12:25am

Yes, he has to go. Maybe he was scared, maybe he feared for his position but at the end of the day what he did was wrong and he needs to step down. I'm sure he will soon enough too.

goat2 · 21-03-2010 1:39am

mr brady should go, and now

james finn · 21-03-2010 1:55am

strobe wrote: »

If I was to murder your family and then avoid capture for a few decades would you shrug your shoulders and say "what's done is done" and stop going on about it?

murder?

i say sack them and move on.

all this talk about the past yet nobody can say what should be done, its time to move on or let it eat you up.

hinault · 21-03-2010 2:11am

I read Pope Benedicts pastoral letter and my first impression is that it is a heartfelt letter from the Pontiff : he speaks directly in his letter to each of the groups directly affected by the clerical abuse.

It was interesting as I attended 19.30hrs Mass this evening in Thurles cathederal where Bishop Clifford was saying Mass.
For his homily, he read excerpts from the letter and made no comment on the contents of the letter except to say that people should "read the letter with an open mind".
Actually the Bishop looked to be very sombre.

I think the Pontiff sees this letter as being one step in the process of trying to restore the good name of the Catholic Church.
What is abundantly clear from the letter is that the Pope regards child sexual abuse as a crime.

strobe · 21-03-2010 2:16am

james finn wrote: »

murder?

i say sack them and move on.

all this talk about the past yet nobody can say what should be done, its time to move on or let it eat you up.

That's fair enough I guess, I might have misunderstood your previous post.

ISAW · 21-03-2010 9:18am

dunleakelleher wrote: »

I disagree but
Thank you for your personal view.

My personal view is raping a child is a crime even in the 70s and should be reported to the police.

That isn't my personal view! It was the actual Irish rape law at the time (in the 1970s)

Rape under Irish law could only happen to a female.

I don't think i would like to continue a conversation with you. But thank you for your input.

What you think or your opinion is beside the issue.
A husband could not rape his wife up until 1990 for example. The Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990.
You could report that all you wanted at the time and no husband could be charged with rape.

In fact i think rape became defined in 1981 - Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981.

Mind you at that time sexual relations between adult males was illegal.

You will find more information here:
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/justice/criminal-law/criminal-offences/law_on_sex_offences_in_ireland

Now back to the original post.
the support of the Primates Position.
Is the pope saying in his letter that he does not support the primates position.
The Pope said "Nevertheless, it must be admitted that grave errors of judgement were made and failures of leadership occurred. All this has seriously undermined your credibility and effectiveness"

Not if the Pope is referring to 1977 since Cardinal Brady was NOT a leader of the Church then. If at some time since then Brady became a Bishop and did nothing about any abuse under his jurisdiction or tried to cover it up in favour of the orgainsation over the victims then the Pope is referring to him.

Well can you have a leader of the Church in Ireland with
serious undermined credibility and effectiveness.

Obviously we can and did in the past. the point is whether we can have them today and whether Brady is one of them!

Furthermore one could be quite effective and credible and still protect the organisation or rule by dictat. John Mc Quade for example.

ISAW · 21-03-2010 9:25am

Blueboyd wrote: »

Offences against the State Act 1939
17.—(1) Every person ... taking in any form or manner of any oath, declaration, or engagement purporting or intended to bind the person taking the same to do all or any of the following things, that is to say:—
...

You missed: the following bit

shall be guilty of a misdemeanour

A misdemeanor is NOT a crime . It is like getting a speeding ticket.

Furthermore Fr Brady made an oath to the church not to the state and the oath the boys concerned took were not oaths given to an official state investigation but to a church investigation so this law doesn't apply.

Section 17 is about administering unlawful oaths to the likes of the IRA.

ISAW · 21-03-2010 9:31am

james finn wrote: »

the 1970s are gone, its 2010 and yes it was bad form but why keep going on about it, whats done is done.

Well James I suppose the reason is that we can learn form the past and not make the same mistakes again. People would not pay the same heed to last years Six nations rugby tournament or to the occupation of Northern Ireland for 400 years so it is only reasonable to look at the past and try to learn from our mistakes I suppose.

also is the idea that justice has to be done and has to be seen to be done. It isn't really much of a reckoning if someone comes to you and says "we took your house and land and sold your wife and children into slavery but what is done is done" is it?

On the other hand there are some people who are simply outraged and only want action rather than a solution. such people are whipped up by the likes of tabloid press and actually feel they are assisting justice.

ISAW · 21-03-2010 9:37am

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Claiming that what happened wasn't rape is below contemptable.

It happens to be a fact. In the 1970s one could not rape a male. The law of rape only applied to females as far as i am aware.

Like dunleakelleher I have no interest in discussing morality with someone who's concept of right and wrong is so out of kilter with the norm.

You seem to be confusing morality with the law and assuming legal courts are moral courts. In courts you get the law.

I have no contempt about right and wrong. i have clearly pout my opinion about what I regard as wrong on the record and I have also shown what alws applied and how even if you believed something was rape no gardai would be able to prosecute someone for rape then. And am now going to ask you to withdraw that personal remark that my personal views on right and wrong are contemptable. As it stands you are trying to make a tabloid type bullet point that I approve of child abuse. i refuse to accept your personal remarks about me.

ISAW · 21-03-2010 9:43am

james finn wrote: »

yes its rape but what do we do, talk about it till we die or make the change and move on cos its on tv-radio everyday, you have to get to a point where you say enough is enough move on.

The question was asked why didnt Brady go to the gardai and report rape. I pointed out that he couldnt do that since rape didnt exist at the time under law for males. similarly at one point in time slavery was legal. If I lived then I could say I believed slavery was wrong but i could not go to the police and report someone for having slaves since it was not illegal at the time. and it is important that we consider why it was not illegal but as I keep stating we cant operate as if the 1977 is today and operated on today's standards and laws.

That does not mean I think child sexual abuse is wrong. I have stated that sex between an adult and a child is wrong in my opinion even if it is legal!

got it?

I hope you are not suggesting that I at any stage approved of such abuse.

ISAW · 21-03-2010 9:53am

looksee wrote: »

As a non-Catholic I may not be entitled to an opinion on this thread, but my children are Catholic and I live in a Catholic society so I feel I should be able to comment. Also the CC did not treat me with any respect when I got married. Among other things I was one of those people who signed away my rights to raise my children as other than Catholic.

However, if you cannot remember - personally I mean, not as theory - the attitudes and atmosphere of the 70s in Ireland, then you will find it very difficult to appreciate the point that some people are trying to put forward here.

...
By today's standards the Cardinal was wrong, probably no one is more aware of that than himself. But what good will it do to sacrifice one person who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

One of the most balanced and inshghtfull contributions in the discussion so far . thanks.

ISAW · 21-03-2010 10:02am

dunleakelleher wrote: »

You are right we should not just talk about it till we die or as the pope has done write a strongly worded letter about these hideous crimes. It is on TV-Radio and we should and for the sake of the RCC we have to move on. The change being a full purge in the RCC of those who committed child rape, those who knew about child rape and those who remained silent about child rape for the good of the church. And at that point as you rightly say then and only then we can move on.

I have already informed you you CANT charge some of these people with rape. If you want to bring them into court fair enough but uit seems they will be charged withlesser criomes and get say a year in prison . And that is IF you can prove it! But let us say you can and do get say 50 clergy into court and get convictions in all cases. You have now spent say 100 million in expenses and theose convicted are out on the street again in eighteen months time. Let us say you also remove all Bishops or apostolic administrators who had any knowledge of these 50 at any stage between thn and now from office. THe are still priests mind yu so they are still doing their job as a proiest even thought they may not be acting as Bishops. Why you would want to remove all these Bishops rather than get the b
bishops to change their ways I dont know. But lets say you dachieve that and other Priests now become New bishops.

what have you achieved?

Now we get to the "moving on" bit. The statistics show that about one per cent of abusers were clergy. If you have done this with the 50 clergy what are you going to do about the other 5,000 abusers? Are you going to try them too? At a cost of 5 to ten billion Euro? for what purpose?

Surely the 100 million (or 5 billion) is better spent on the victims?

dunleakelleher · 21-03-2010 10:04am

Michael B wrote: »

Yes, he has to go. Maybe he was scared, maybe he feared for his position but at the end of the day what he did was wrong and he needs to step down. I'm sure he will soon enough too.

No doubt he was scared and reading the Vatican instruction letter of 1962 he would have been excommunicated along with the victims (the mind beggars belief). But that doesn't excuse him from doing the right thing now and leave. And surely as a human he knows what morally right.
Also If he was willing to stay silent about child rape for the good of the Church. Is he not willing to go so the Church can regain some bit of credibility in Ireland again. Or is not concerned about the Church at all and being a bit more selfish and concerned about his position.
Time will tell.

ISAW · 21-03-2010 10:04am

Michael B wrote: »

Yes, he has to go. Maybe he was scared, maybe he feared for his position but at the end of the day what he did was wrong and he needs to step down. I'm sure he will soon enough too.

1. What specifically do you claim Brady did that was wrong?
2. How does his resigning as a Bishop do anything about or relate to what you claim in 1?

ISAW · 21-03-2010 10:06am

james finn wrote: »

murder?

i say sack them and move on.

all this talk about the past yet nobody can say what should be done, its time to move on or let it eat you up.

That is a logical contradiction. You cant say "move on" and also say "sack them". If you say "sack them" you have to revisit the issue and not move on!

ISAW · 21-03-2010 10:08am

goat2 wrote: »

mr brady should go, and now

And the reasonable underlying facts supporting this opinion are?

J C · 21-03-2010 11:43am

hinault wrote: »

I read Pope Benedicts pastoral letter and my first impression is that it is a heartfelt letter from the Pontiff : he speaks directly in his letter to each of the groups directly affected by the clerical abuse.

It was interesting as I attended 19.30hrs Mass this evening in Thurles cathederal where Bishop Clifford was saying Mass.
For his homily, he read excerpts from the letter and made no comment on the contents of the letter except to say that people should "read the letter with an open mind".
Actually the Bishop looked to be very sombre.

I think the Pontiff sees this letter as being one step in the process of trying to restore the good name of the Catholic Church.
What is abundantly clear from the letter is that the Pope regards child sexual abuse as a crime.

... child sexual abuse has always been a crime against the victims and a sin against God ... and you don't need to be a Pope and neither do you need to read a Papal Letter to know this!!!

Power and responsibility go hand in hand.
If you have power and you don't know about something serious going on under your watch then questions of competence arise. This does not seem to be an issue in the Roman Catholic Church where every detail of these cases seem to have been meticulously recorded and forwarded through 'line management' to Rome.
Ultimate moral reponsibility therefore rests with the person of highest authority in the Vatican who knew about these issues - or who should have known about these issues and didn't ensure that they were effectively dealt with.

There are two issues in relation to 'dealing effectively' with pervert priests from a moral perspective:-
1. The victims should have been offered the best councelling and medical care that could be provided as well as monetary compensation that matched in (in so far as money can) the damage done to them.
2. Effective steps should have been taken to protect an unsuspecting public from the onging danger that these priests, represented.

In so far as the Vatican addressed these two issues at the time and since, they have discharged their moral duty ... and in so far as they have neglected these two issues they bear moral responsibilty for these priests crimes.

I haven't read the Letter.
However, I would offer the following comment under 'the spirit of Vatican II' in judging the content of this letter.
In so far as this Papal Letter clarified what was done (and is intended to be done) by the Vatican to address the above two issues it is a useful document.

... so, has the Letter identified who the people in the Vatican were who knew about these crimes ?

... has the Letter set out the actions taken by the Vatican to deal with these crimes at the time and since?

... and has it set out a propsed system for making financial and medical provision to the victims ?

'Passing the buck' back to an Irish Church which de facto and de jure acts under the direct instructions and control of the Vatican would be a reversal of the normal relationship between power and responsibilty.

lmaopml · 21-03-2010 11:53am

Hi JC,

Why don't you just read the letter?

Manach · 21-03-2010 11:57am

and falling on your governmental/organisational ministerial sword over the wrong doings of your underlings is such an Irish tradition?

prinz · 21-03-2010 12:24pm

taconnol wrote: »

Please point out where I said nothing had changed. There is a really bad attitude towards questioning the actions of the Church. It is not healthy.

You questioned what changes had been made, who was reporting what. A 2 minute google and you can see press releases dealing with these issues.

Macros42 wrote: »

Aren't all catholics part of the church not outside it? I may be an atheist but I have read and do understand your bible. I cannot remember the chapter in it that states that only the frocked are part of the church :rolleyes:

Yes.:rolleyes:. However very few Catholics are made aware of changes within the Church. If you saw as many headlines for how changes were being made as you do for allegations of different things you may have a different opinion. Some people are still of the opinion that the culture within the Church has not changed... well, it has.

dunleakelleher wrote: »

prinz. Seems to refuse to answer that point by many different posters here. But maybe prinz made that comment by mistake.

See above.. I made no mistake, the changes within the Church are not publicised enough by the media. It doesn't sell papers.

dunleakelleher wrote: »

So if so that is not an issue we all make mistakes. And as we know in the catholic church we can all make mistakes and sometimes even our leaders refuse to analogue them. And as our pope told us today Its all part of being a good catholic.

Maybe they should have gone digital. Could you point out in the Pastoral Letter where the Pope instructed good Catholics to refuse to acknowledge past crimes?

Orion · 21-03-2010 12:43pm

prinz wrote: »

Yes.:rolleyes:. However very few Catholics are made aware of changes within the Church. If you saw as many headlines for how changes were being made as you do for allegations of different things you may have a different opinion. Some people are still of the opinion that the culture within the Church has not changed... well, it has.

Roll your eyes all you want. But if the church is still making decision in secret and keeping them from the membership of the church then very little has changed.

The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Comments